As for my signal to noise ratio...I dont' deny the plethora of bullshit I throw against the walls to watch the predictable fools squabble and dance in reaction - it amuses to me.

That being said...
1. Computer Climate models are almost 100% *wrong* and have failed to accurately predict anything and yet...
2. Computer Climate models are almost the entire basis for the climate fear-mongering...with subsequent calls for:
3. MORE research dollars (for settled science...to discover the cause which...I thought...was fully known and understood...and teh solution, which is to eliminate the use of the cause....seems like the Feds can stop funding now, doesn't it?)
4. MORE money to specified, government-hand-picked industries...which have consistently failed to produce reasonable/affordable/effective results even while:

If this were ANYTHING BUT the fear-mongering left convincing the little kiddies they were all going to die when the earth explodes because of man...you very same people would be following the money trail and demanding those responsible for all the fraudulent claims be strung up. Government and money are always wrong and decietful....except when it comes to global warming, in which case they, if anything, aren't right enough and we need more more more regulation and research and grants to fraudsters...even while all the Prophets of Doom, when you examine their daily lives, seem to be wholly unaware that their very own lifestyles mirror the patterns of doom they cry out for you to change from. Ironic, isn't it? And...if you exercised a little honesty...it's telling. Hard to believe a guy telling me my SUV is destroying the planet as he hops onto his private jet to go to a meeting half way around the world instead of using the fast, efficient and energy-coneserving tele-presence methods we have available these days...

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2013/oct/01/ipcc-global-warming-projections-accurate

ITT: krellin doesn't know how computer models actually work

Krellin,

As someone with a strong background in modeling/simulation, can you elaborate on what 100% wrong means? Do the values the models produces have a 100% error? For all values? Are they modeling the past correctly but not the future?

@2WL....uhhhhh....actually 2WL, I'm pretty damned sure I know how computer models work. In fact, I spent years of my life *ON* a computer model of a vehicle, testing powertrain/emissions software. Inevitably, we would need to get on a REAL vehicle and prove the models accuracy, fine-tune our code and make corrections as needed.

You see, a computer model cold never quite capture reality...and though year after year we refined and recalibrated our models, alas it was just a man's approximation of a complex piece of machinery that, ironically, he also designed.

So tell me, of wise 2WL -- would you ever drive a vehicle and that was 100% designed, tested and built by computer model, without ever having any real-world testing? I wonder...GM...ignition switch failure case...is GM guilty? The computer models say the switch was OK. where do you stand on that computer model? (which, by the way, is moronically simplistic as compared to, say, for the sake of argument, modeling a GLOBAL CLIMATE...)

abge - you tell me -- which computer model predictions of certain climate DOOM have come true? I’m willing to revise my 100% number down if you are willing to admit that climate models are woefully inaccurate at predictive capacity, and the the politicians seeking excessive regulations/taxation/limitations consistently make wild ass claims of worst case scenarios which never come true….but which I guarantee you the majority of the climate doom-and-gloomers here will repeat at sacred truth (coastal cities flooding, massive desertification, etc)

I'm willing to have a reasonable discussion apart from my histrionics if just one of you had the decency to not be such a all-in sucker for the doom-sayers.

I'm not the one making claims here; you are. I never said climate models are infallible.

I haven't spent much time looking at climate science because all the science gets lost behind the political bullshit. Can you show me a peer-reviewed model from a real journal that was very wrong so I can see what you're talking about?

So your powertrain modeling gives you the requisite knowledge to speak on climate change models? Maybe you should sign your petition as well, since you're clearly well qualified to speak on the matter. So much so, in fact, that you're assuming we can just take you at your word that these models are 100% wrong?

That's rich.

If you'd have done even a rudimentary reading into IPCC (and other) climate change models, you'd recognize that these models take into account a possible range of future changes to temperature, sea level rise, ice cap shrinkage, etc. As I'm also sure you know, modeling something as complex as future climate is much more challenging than, say, computer models of car powertrains. As it happens, current temperature increases are well within the range of temperatures predicted by IPCC models.

But if you'd like to actually put your money where your caps lock broken mouth is and show us some kind of evidence behind your "100%" claim, I'd love to see it.

Well well...
Politicians taking advantage of the climate change issues? No way, as if politicians never took advantage of anything... It's no surprise that some politicians try to get votes out of the question, they know there's a lot of people out there who ''believe'' in climate change. There will always be people on both sides of a question to try to take advantage of the respective groups.

And really, what kind of money can the scientists can make on that? Most of the true science is being toned down in a lot of places in favour of engineering, which ironically enough, pure science is the food plate of engineering. Engineering and pure science are two sides of the same coin. Governments give less money to ''regular'' scientists for simple reasons: they don't give enough money in the short term and very often their discoveries go against their ideology. That's something very important happening in Canada right now for example.

There's no money to be made with pure science, climate scientists just try to warn the world about how self-destructive we are. I mean, even if climate change wasn't true, just look in Asia. People are killing themselves, giving themselves cancer, asthma and plenty of shit like that because their environment is so polluted by their cars. People take pictures of themselves in front of a Hong Kong with a blue sky photograph in Hong Kong iteself because it's all grey and you can't see nearly as far as before. Do we need to show that it's bad for the planet to show that we should radically diminish our petrol consumption? It's killing ourselves.

Speaking of money, who do you think makes money out of climate change denial? First and foremost the oil industry for sure! It would be catastrophic for them for us to stop using gas cars and the likes. They want to protect the huge part they have on the energy industry, it's almost a monopoly they have. Just look how ridiculously rich the Koch brothers are for example! The new pipeline thing in North America can give them billions more even if eventual leaks are certain and that will be us who will pay the bill. And people with money have power and the opportunity to buy politicians and tv channels (who are bought by politicians).

It's so possible to abandon the oil industry, there's a lot of other energies we can use. A lot of incredible discoveries were abandoned because it bothered some people with big pockets. Of course it costs a lot of money to use new technologies, but that's always the case! They are never 100% efficient at first, we got to try them to make them better. You know, there was a time before the oil industry... Jobs will be lost but new jobs will be created, that's the way of life. The oil industry is terribly afraid that we'll make the right choices, because they'll loose all their power.

And don't forget there is no infinite petrol on this planet. The industry will die one day or another, we'd better change to a new one now when we can prepare ourselves rather than driving full speed in a brick wall only realizing later we have no more oil. And imagine all the shit on the planet that will happen if oil becomes a rare resource and we have no alternative ready! That's wars that will happen, political instability, everything climate change deniers tell us will happen if we try to go to new energies. And let's not forget all the shit that will happen to Earth, costal cities being drowned, etc.

A word about climate change. It's not ironic that some people call it warming and others change and all. It's actually climate change but warming is accurate in a way that the climate will change for the worse. The Earth is a complex system, nowhere heats the same way as everywhere else. There are ocean streams, air streams, many sub-systems that affect the earth's climate. Some place might become colder, getting more rain as others get hotter. It all depends on how these smaller systems are perturbed by the too much CO2 in the air and how it affects its immediate environment and the other systems.

ANYWAY. There are way more greener and more efficient and cost-effective energies to be used. We just have to try them and research them more. But the oil industry monopoly and their big pockets is what is keeping us away from evolving. Why stay with oil? It's seriously starting to be an old energy source. We always found new and more effective energy sources and adopted them, why can't we do it now?

Someone mentioned the polar regions. Try this one:
Divine, D., Isaksson, E., Martma, T., Meijer, H.A.J., Moore, J., Pohjola, V., van de Wal, R.S.W. and Godtliebsen, F. 2011. Thousand years of winter surface air temperature variations in Svalbard and northern Norway reconstructed from ice-core data. Polar Research 30: 10.3402/polar.v30i0.7379.
file:///C:/Users/David/Downloads/7379-26736-1-PB.pdf

Here is the abstract -

Two isotopic ice core records from western Svalbard are calibrated to
reconstruct more than 1000 years of past winter surface air temperature
variations in Longyearbyen, Svalbard, and Vardø, northern Norway. Analysis
of the derived reconstructions suggests that the climate evolution of the last
millennium in these study areas comprises three major sub-periods. The
cooling stage in Svalbard (ca. 800
1800) is characterized by a progressive
winter cooling of approximately 0.9 8C century1 (0.3 8C century1 for
Vardø) and a lack of distinct signs of abrupt climate transitions. This makes it
difficult to associate the onset of the Little Ice Age in Svalbard with any
particular time period. During the 1800s, which according to our results was
the coldest century in Svalbard, the winter cooling associated with the Little
Ice Age was on the order of 4 8C (1.3 8C for Vardø) compared to the 1900s. The
rapid warming that commenced at the beginning of the 20th century was
accompanied by a parallel decline in sea-ice extent in the study area. However,
both the reconstructed winter temperatures as well as indirect indicators of
summer temperatures suggest the Medieval period before the 1200s was at
least as warm as at the end of the 1990s in Svalbard.

Someone mentioned peer review (as an aside I wonder if he has heard of Kuhn?). Anyway, here is the classic study on confirmatory bias:

Abstract
Confirmatory bias is the tendency to emphasize and believe experiences which support one's views and to ignore or discredit those which do not.
The effects of this tendency have been repeatedly documented in clinical research. However, its ramifications for the behavior of scientists have yet to be adequately explored. For example, although publication is a critical element in determining the contribution and impact of scientific findings~ little research attention has been devoted to the variables operative in journal review policies. In the present study, 75 journal reviewers were asked to referee manuscripts which described identical experimental procedures but which reported positive, negative, mixed, or no results. In addition to showing poor interrater agreement, reviewers were strongly biased against manuscripts which reported results contrary to their theoretical perspective. The implications of these findings for epistemology and the peer review system are briefly addressed.

Mahoney, M. J. (1977). Publication prejudices: An experimental study of confirmatory bias in the peer review system. Cognitive therapy and research, 1(2), 161-175.

Moreover, going back to the subject in hand, it would not do to forget Phil Jones at the CRU famous emails; for example -

From Phil Jones To: Michael Mann (Pennsylvania State University). July 8, 2004
"I can't see either of these papers being in the next IPCC report. Kevin and I will keep them out somehow — even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is!"

Grundmann, R. (2013). “Climategate” and The Scientific Ethos. Science, Technology & Human Values, 38(1), 67-93.
file:///C:/Users/David/Downloads/Science%20Technology%20Human%20Values-2013-Grundmann-67-93.pd

Incidentally 400 odd years ago we would have had a peer reviewed consensus on, for example, alchemy.

Why are we even entertaining this discussion?

krellin spewing bullshit as always.

@2wl - So you think that, when we can barely accurately model a powertrain, you thnk that we can accurately model the earth's climate?

You are such a dumbass it isn't even worth talking to you, as usual. If you had a shred of integrity, you would, at the very least, admit that the climate models are faulty.

Instead, even thought the climate models have utterly failed to predict anything accurately...you know, hurricane cycles, flooded shorelines, etc -- all the doom and gloom predictions...hell, we are all supposed to be starving by now because of the destruction of viable farm land based on predictions from "scientists" from decades ago...

But instead of saying, "Yeah, the climate models suck..." you dig your feet in like a petulant child and insist they MUST be right....even though far less complex systems, which most likely engineers have been modeling for a much longer period of time, *still* fail to accurately represent the real world performance of complex, real world behavior.

Yeah, 2WL, I will assert that my experience in automotive engineering and working with the reletively simple modeling of mechanical systems is proof enough that it's damned near impossible to put faith in climate models....especially since, you know, THEY MODIFY AND REVISE THE CLIMATE MODELS ON A CONTINUOUS BASIS BECAUSE THEY ADMIT THEY ARE WRONG AND KEEP DISCOVERING NEW STUFF WHICH REQUIRES THEM TO CHANGE THE FUCKING MODELS, YOU ASSTARD.

/\ And THAT is exactly the demonstration of the absolute idiocy of the True Believer in "climate science" like 2WL -- morons that live and die by every word of the climate scare-mongers....even though, by the admission and *actions* of the climate "scientists", they DON'T KNOW SHIT.

I actually believe they should actually keep funding the science BECAUSE IT IS SO FAULTY....NOT because it is "settled". Not because it is comlete or accurate.

They should completely revise and revampe the funding MECHANISMS, and ensure that there is a broader distribution of funds to organizations that aren't all bought-and-paid for with pre-determined outcomes

There are plenty of scientists that would accept climate research funding who can NOT obtain it, because their predetermined outcomes don't match the desires of the political funding mechanisms.

The fact that you clowns say in one breath "the science is settled, the models are accurate" and then insiste that we need to keep funding at consistent levels the research is a complete contradiction...and a demonstration that none of you even take half a second to consider your positions....you are just the True Believers...no less walking by faith than any religious zealot.

This site needs a minus one button.

Hey, krellin, where are those papers, buddy?

Which papers? I'm still waiting to find some climate predictions form the doom-sayers that have come true. I'll be johnny-on-the-spot with requested info as soon as some of those accurate predictions have been produced. That would be climate model predictions, and the subsequent actual occurrence of weather behavior/environmental changes that matches the dire prediction.

You know...like the predictions of horrifying and ever-increasing occurrence of horrifyingly powerful hurricanes, for instance...which predictions have occurred in recent years (followed by years of incredibly minor hurricane activity...) Or the massive desertification of American farmland or...the disappearance of islands under the sea never to return and flooded eastern seaboard...something like that.

Krellin,

You keep talking about these alleged models that are completely wrong that all of climate science is based on. Show me one.

Abge...do you live in a vacuum? Are you wholly unaware of the all the doom and gloom predictions of the dire consequences of global warming...climate change....climate disruption....whatever it's called today?

You are awfully defensive of something that you apparently have absolutely no knowledge of....

Krellin

Cut the shit.

*YOU* said these models exists, not me. If they're so ubiquitously wrong, then you should have no problem finding one for me.

Still the beats bang, still doin' my thang, since I lef' ain't too much changed, Still.....

Krellin, put this in your tin-foil hat and smoke it:

http://youtu.be/H-BbPBg3vj8

Abge - are you denying that there are global climate models, and the Speakers of Climate Doom use them on a regular basis to influence the public and politicians to create policy basd upon said models?

Abge- cut the shit, man, Demonstrate a tiny eeny weensy bit of integrity, brother.

http://www.oc.nps.edu/NAME/Maslowski%20et%20al.%202012%20EPS%20Future%20of%20Arctic%20Sea%20Ice.pdf

Here...a nice paper discussing how woefully inadequate the models are for arctic sea ice. Nice starting point for you.

Mapu - I will not be opening your youtu.be link.

abge - you disappoint me. All the other monkeys with their blind faith in the Speakers of Climate Doom...them I can accept for the dance monkeys that they are.

For YOU to sit there and bang away on your little keyboard and pretend you don't know that climate models exists....go the fuck away abge.

It's only a matter of time before krellin says something like "dance little monkeys" again.

HOLY SHIT I FUCKING CALLED IT